Reportedly set for an August 3 release, the Clean Power Plan, Obama administration’s final plan to cut power-plant emissions , would remake the electricity industry as it has existed for a century. The result will be more expensive and less reliable power for American industry and consumers. > Read more

"Post-modern science" - it doesn't matter the facts, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters. For a while,the greens remained in lockstep, which couldn't last. When it comes time to split up the loot, the thieves always fall out in the end.> Listen to the interview

I, Whiskey: The Spirit of the Market will be a documentary that celebrates human creativity and craft, highlighting how human ingenuity and the market work together to bring us the many things we love and enjoy—like whiskey. Check ou

t our great perks on Indiegogo. Join Team #iwhiskey & help make this film a reality!> Read more

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org. Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

Four out of 10 people worldwide had never heard of climate change, according to new research published in Nature Climate Change.

Inside the BeltwayMyron Ebell

EPA Reportedly Will Issue Final Rules on Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Next Week

Mainstream media outlets reported this week that the Environmental Protection Agency will release its final rules for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants next Monday or Tuesday, 3rd or 4th August. The Washington Post and the New York Times both ran stories that contain details of changes in the rules provided by unnamed White House sources. It was also reported that President Barack Obama will join EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a White House Rose Garden press briefing to announce the rules.

According to these reports, the final rule for existing power plants, the so-called “Clean Power” Plan, will differ from the proposed rule released in June 2014 in several ways. The deadline for States to implement their plans to reduce emissions will be moved from 2020 to 2022. The EPA will offer extra credit to States that take early action to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency. Another report suggested that the final rule will give credit for nuclear plants under construction or being planned, rather than including them in the baseline.

After the final rules are released, the Cooler Heads Coalition’s web site, GlobalWarming.org, will provide analysis and links to other useful analyses. In addition, the American Energy Alliance has just created a hub for the “latest information on how States and the public are fighting back against the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan.”

CEI has just published my colleague William Yeatman’s briefing on some of the legal issues involved, EPA’s “Clean Power” Plan Overreach. And the Energy and Environment Legal Institute has just published my CEI colleague Chris Horner’s report, Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation.

Finally, it is worth noting that it was reported that Alpha Natural Resources, one of the nation’s largest coal producers, will file for bankruptcy on Monday, 3rd August. The main reason coal prices have gone down by over 70% since 2011 is the threat of EPA’s power plant rules.

Thirteen Major Companies Pledge Allegiance to Obama Climate Agenda

Senior executives of thirteen major companies went to the White House on 27th July to announce that they had signed on to the “American Business Act on Climate Pledge.” In doing so, the companies pledged support for President Barack Obama’s climate action agenda and a strong outcome to the UN climate negotiations due to be concluded in Paris in December. Individual commitments by the thirteen companies total “at least $140 billion in new low-carbon investment and more than 1600 megawatts of new renewable energy.”

The companies that signed the pledge are: Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart. The White House also announced that a second round of companies that have signed the pledge will be announced this fall. You may want to boycott them all.

Lots More Companies To Boycott

Ceres, the non-profit front group for businesses hoping to profit from energy-rationing policies, announced on 31st July that 365 companies and investors have sent letters to the governors of 29 States urging them to support the EPA’s regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. The rules for existing and new plants are expected to be released in final form in the first week of August.

Most of the companies signing the letters are small to tiny, but Ceres listed in boldface those with annual revenues over $100 million and investors with over $2 billion in assets being managed. These companies include: Adidas, Aveda, Ben and Jerry’s, Clif Bar, eBay, Eileen Fisher, Gap, General Mills, L’Oreal, Levi Strauss, Mars, Nestle, New Belgium Brewing, Seventh Generation, Staples, Stonyfield, Sun Edison, Dannon, North Face, Timberland, and Unilever. Quite a few religious organizations are also on the list, including the Presbyterian Church, the Dominican Sisters, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. Those keeping a comprehensive boycott list will want to consult the entire list.

NERA Economic Consulting this week published a study, commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, of the transportation and macroeconomic impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard program (“RFS2”). The study concludes that EPA’s proposed reduction of refiners' renewable volume obligations (RVOs) for calendar years 2014-2016 is essential to avert economic disaster. It also predicts EPA will have to continually prune back the statutory requirements in the years ahead.

The study includes a concise overview of how the RFS2 program works. In a nutshell, the RFS program, as extended and expanded the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), requires refiners, blenders, and fuel importers to increase the overall quantity of biofuel sold in the nation’s motor fuel supply from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 36 billion in 2022. EISA also establishes sub-targets for conventional, advanced, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuels. In addition, the statute authorizes EPA to adjust the targets if “there is an inadequate supply,” a criterion defined broadly by the agency to include infrastructure and market constraints limiting supply to “the ultimate consumers.” (For additional background and commentary, see my article in the July 2015 edition of Greenwatch).

Due to enormous and growing gaps between the statutory cellulosic targets and actual commercial production, and, more importantly, the market’s inability to absorb more than 10% ethanol in the nation’s motor fuel supply, EPA in May proposed to reduce the total biofuel target 2 billion gallons below the statutory goal for 2014, and more than 4 billion below the statutory goals for 2015 and 2016. Renewable fuel lobbyists would, of course, prefer that EPA uphold the overall statutory requirements. That would cause "severe" economic harm, the NERA study argues.

Here’s why. RVOs are calculated as a percentage of the total volume of motor fuel each refiner sells in domestic commerce. If RVOs exceed what refiners can actually sell to U.S. consumers, they will reduce their obligations by either producing less motor fuel or selling more fuel abroad. Reducing domestic supplies of gasoline and diesel will sharply increase gasoline and diesel prices. Given the pivotal role of transportation in the movement of people and goods, higher fuel costs will have damaging ripple effects throughout the economy. In the NERA authors’ words:

“Higher diesel fuel costs increase the cost to move raw materials and finished goods around the country, thus eventually making everything that directly or indirectly depends on transportation services more costly. Likewise the higher gasoline prices leave consumers with less disposable income. As a result of these impacts, consumption of goods and services declines. All of these impacts lead to severe economic harm.”

Senate Energy Legislation UpdateWilliam Yeatman

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 18-4 this week to advance the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. Last week I described the bill as being a collection of policies that are disparate, uncontroversial, and minor. I also said that there was more bad than good in the bill, though the total impact is thankfully low (by virtue of the smallness of the policies). There’s a similarly unimpressive bill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, so it would seem there’s a good chance of some sort of energy package being passed by both chambers.

Also in last week’s Digest, I noted that Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski promised to hold a committee vote on a bill that would lift the Nixon-era oil export ban. True to her word, the Committee this week voted to allow oil exports along a party-line 12-10 vote. It’s unclear whether the bill has the votes to avoid a filibuster. It was reported today by Energy & Environment News that some Senate Democrats are willing to support an end to the oil export ban in exchange for continuing tax handouts for wind energy. House Speaker John Boehner this week publicly threw his support behind a lifting of the oil export ban, so the bill’s congressional prospects are excellent if it passes the Senate. President Obama has not yet indicated whether or not he would veto such a measure.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) on 28th July directed the state’s Department of Ecology to devise a binding cap on carbon dioxide emissions. This follows the state legislature’s rejection last month of Inslee’s legislative proposals to create a low-carbon fuel standard for vehicles and a cap-and-trade system for major carbon dioxide emitters.

The governor’s office said that they expect it will “take about a year” for the department to develop policies to reduce CO2 emissions using existing legislative authority. Part of the effort will be determining how the governor’s order can be implemented legally. Governor Inslee claims that he has the authority to cap emissions under a 2008 law that set a target of reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Science UpdateMarlo Lewis

Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?

The IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) famously declared that global average sea level increased at an average rate of 3.1 millimeters (mm) per year during 1993-2003, almost twice the 50-year average rate of 1.8 mm per year during 1961-2003. Although the IPCC said it was “unclear” whether the faster rate post 1993 “reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer term trend,” many in the alarm camp took the IPCC’s finding as confirmation of their fears.

This week on CO2Science.Org, Dr. Craig Idso reviews numerous empirical studies on sea-level rise published since 2003. The overall picture is indeed unclear. Some researchers acknowledge that the recent acceleration may be the rising branch of a decadal oscillation. Some find similar rates during the first half of the 20th century. Some think ground water withdrawals contributed significantly to the late 20th century/early 21st century acceleration. Some find no recent acceleration or an actual deceleration.

The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group finds no acceleration during the most recent 22-year-plus (1992-2015) period. If the estimated 3.3 mm/yr rate holds, sea levels will increase about 1 foot by 2100. For perspective, sea levels rose about 7 inches during the 20th century.

Former NASA scientist James Hansen predicts sea levels could rise 10 feet by 2100. Idso's review provides a sober antidote to such scary speculation. Now is not a good time to sell the beach house.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

WASHINGTON. D.C. – This week, the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan H.R. 774 – the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 to enhance the enforcement authority of the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to regulate illegal fishing and protect Granite State fishermen from unfair and illegal competition.

In 2012, Congressman Guinta was the lead Republican sponsor of a similar measure, H.R. 4100 - the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2011 - with lead sponsor Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam.

“For nearly 400 years, our Seacoast region has provided Granite Staters with thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic opportunities annually thanks to our fishermen, whose efforts also support our tourism and hospitality industries. Unfortunately, there are individuals knowingly and willingly breaking our nation’s fishing laws. I have worked on the issue of IUU fishing for a number of years now, and this bipartisan bill is a great first step to ensuring Granite State fishermen are not subject to unfair and illegal competitive disadvantages.”

The bill also increases capacity for inspection, identification, and monitoring of illegal foreign vessels, amends several international agreements to incorporate civil and criminal penalties, and broadens data sharing authority with foreign governments in order to identify and penalize nations that do not comply with fisheries management regulations.

Congressman Guinta was the lead republican sponsor of a similar bill in the 112th Congress.

Following the release of multiple videos showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of human organs, Governor Jindal is calling on companies that provide funding to Planned Parenthood to stop doing so immediately.

When the first video emerged, Governor Jindal launched an investigation in Louisiana of Planned Parenthood.

You will have seen the comments made earlier today by Secretary Clinton, in which she hid behind the fact that she was Secretary of State during part of the review process, claiming that this prevents her from expressing a view on the issue.

She even admitted that she would not take a position on the project until President Obama and Secretary Kerry have done it for her, saying “If it’s undecided when I become President, I will answer your question”.

Here is a statement from Gov Jindal:

“Secretary Clinton has spent her entire campaign dodging questions. If she refuses to tell the voters where she stands on important issues like the Keystone pipeline, she shouldn’t be running for President.

“What other questions does Hillary Clinton think that her time as Secretary of State excuses her from answering? Does she expect to be elected President without letting people know what they are voting for?"

Gov Jindal also called out her lack of leadership via twitter. @HillaryClinton has so far refused to respond.